Fake News about Israel from ‘American Thinker’ Michael Berenhaus

Hasbara News Club — I noted today a “news” article pushed by Google News (which itself has become a hotbed of fake news) by Michael Berenhaus from the alt-right propaganda Web site of ‘American Thinker’ (AT) which I will now destroy with cold, hard, facts.

AT: The Washington Post has provided yet another tiresome front-page smear against Israeli Jews who want to live in an area considered disputed territory, though Israel won it after being attacked by Jordan in 1967 (“Israel forges ahead on new housing” 1/25/17).

Not “disputed” Palestine is Illegally Occupied

1. The state of Palestine, recognized by 138 nations and the Vatican is illegally occupied by the Apartheid state of Israel. Most of the alt-right, antisemitic Hasbara troll brigade, of which apparently Berenhaus has aspirations to excel at, have a huge problem with the rule of law and factual reality in general.

The conclusion is inescapable: Netanyahu is not a genuine partner for the Palestinians on the road to peace. Land-grabbing and peace-making simply do not go together and Israel’s right-wing government has opted for the former. Netanyahu is like a man who, while negotiating the division of a pizza, continues to eat it. Obama’s position is pusillanimous and, for a superpower, indescribably feeble.

Article 49, paragraph 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention is quite clear and easy to read for those who do not have basic reading comprehension problems. It is verboten for an occupier to transfer its citizens into occupied territory ala the Germans in Poland during the Second World War.

The International Criminal Court of Justice handed down an opinion on this very matter in 2004 that makes clear that the Apartheid Wall and all of the colonies Israel has created in an adjacent state are illegal. These facts have been known for decades and the current “blame” laid upon former President Obama, one of the finest US Presidents in modern times, and one who is already being missed by those foolish people who were fooled by the orange buffoon of doom (OBOD), may have directed a principled abstention from UNSCR 2334 yet UNSCR 465 from March 1st, 1980 came to the same conclusions based upon the same rule of law:

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories…

In reality world, there is no such thing as to the victor goes the spoils

As troubling as the rule of law is for the alt-right antisemitic Hasbara brigade, it is not lawful in the modern era to use military force, and ethnic cleansing and state based terror to steal territory and resources from another state and then call it your own. The Apartheid state of Israel as a UN member (for now) is obligated to adhere to the UN Charter. Article 2, paragraph 4 makes this principle very clear:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

This is the underpinning of the well-known bedrock international legal principle of ‘territory acquired by war is inadmissible’. Berenhaus might note that his stance, based upon outrageous falsehoods, bolsters Vladimir Putin in Crimea but then many are already aware that Putin has put a great deal into encouraging the antisemitic alt-right. OBOD is on the verge of lifting sanctions aginst his Russian best buddy who helped get OBOD installed during the last election (with help from FBI Director Comey whom surprise surprise, OBOD has kept on even as he has been wiping out so many others).

This again is nothing new, everyone who has spent longer than about five minutes looking at the actual facts of this matter rather than just making things up as Berenhaus has done in this so-called “news” article is also aware of this principle from UNSCR 242 passed on November 2nd, 1967:

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter…

Jordan did not attack Israel, defense is not attack

Even Michael Oren has admitted that it was Israel who started the 1967 war of choice. As is usually the case in this conflict, Israel sought more land and in particular water, and it was decided at the highest levels to wage war on the Arab world and enlarge the state of Israel; many Revisionist Zionists were not satisfied with the very resolution they agreed to, UNGAR 181, and termed “irrevocable” in their declaration of independence. The Kingdom of Jordan has the official history, Berenhaus should get out more and not swallow Hasbara propaganda like a hungry guppy:

By the spring of 1967, the situation had become extremely intense. On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22.

Sensing that war was now likely, King Hussein aligned Jordan firmly with Egypt, suggesting an Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treaty. Nasser immediately accepted the idea, and the treaty was signed on May 30. The treaty stipulated that Jordan’s forces were to be placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Moneim Riad. Iraq also signed the pact, while the Syrians denounced it and refused to sign.

The outbidding and rivalry of radical Arab parties allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack on June 5, 1967, virtually eliminating the Egyptian air force in a single blow.14 At that point, the outcome of the war was decided. In response to the Israeli attack, Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. After destroying the Egyptian air force, Israel had complete control of the skies, raining down deadly napalm bombs on the defenseless Arab forces. After a spirited defense of Arab East Jerusalem, the outnumbered and outgunned Jordanian army was forced to retreat to preserve the East Bank heartland against the Zionist expansion. When the final UN cease-fire was imposed on June 11, Israel stood in possession of a wide swath of Arab land, including the Egyptian Sinai, Syria’s Golan Heights, and, most significantly, what remained of Arab Palestine—the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Of the states participating in the conflict, Jordan paid by far the heaviest price. As a result of the war, more than 300,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees and fled to Jordan. For many of them, this was the second uprooting in less than two decades, having been driven from their original homes in 1948. Jordan’s economy was also devastated. About 70% of Jordan’s agricultural land was located in the West Bank, which produced 60 to 65% of its fruits and vegetables. Half of the Kingdom’s industrial establishments were located in the West Bank, while the loss of Jerusalem and other religious sites devastated the tourism industry. Altogether, areas now occupied by Israel had accounted for approximately 38% of Jordan’s gross national product.

The rest of the article is the usual Hasbara deflection, whining like a little child. But why so many resolutions against Israel Berenhaus cries? It might be those more than 640,000 illegal squatters in another country… It might be that Israel has not followed international law since being formed.

And then just to make sure he demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about this conflict and basic human history. Since when does the thief get to dictate to the victim that he must “negotiate” to get back his property and resources? Berenhaus opines, “This is land the Palestinians claim to want for a future state, though they refuse to sit down and negotiate for it.”

No Berenhaus, it was Palestine that was broken up against the will of the indigenous inhabitants. The state of Palestine is recognized by 138 nations and the Vatican. The state of Palestine was legally created under Article 22, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the League of Nations Covenant twenty-four years before Israel. A century ago this year, Arthur Balfour put forth the British policy statement about a Jewish national home in the “country” of Palestine, with the admonition that the rights of the indigenous Palestinians must be protected.

The Palestinians are the victims. It is Israel that should immediately remove the more than 640,000 illegal squatters from Palestine, and they need to take the 20-40,000 illegal squatters out of the illegally occupied Golan Heights as well.

Post navigation

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

"A census of Palestine conducted by the Mandatory government on 23 October 1922. Population figures in the census featured a breakdown by district of residence, religion, language and age.

The total population of Palestine was given as 757,182, of whom 590,890 (78%) were Muslims (“Mohammedans”), 83,794 (11%) Jews, 73,024 (9%) Christians and 9,474 others. The population of Jerusalem was given as 62,578, of whom 13,413 were Muslims, 33,971 Jews, 14,699 Christians and 495 others." From the report:

"In accordance with the provisions of the Proclamation of 1st September 1922, published in the Official Gazette of the same date, a census of Palestine was held on the night of the twenty-second -- twenty-third of October, 1922."

"(1) To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...

(4) Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory..."

-- Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Covenant of the League of Nations, Including Amendments adopted to December, 1924, June 28th, 1919," Lillian Goldman Law Library. (accessed December 2nd, 2016).